You can always expect a scholarly judgment from Teare J. Today he dealt with a long-standing issue in the English law of arrest of ships: the lack of any jurisdiction to demand from the arrester security for, or payment of compensation for, the losses suffered by the owner if the arrest turns out unjustified. His Lordship confirmed the traditional position, holding that it was for Parliament, or possibly the Rules Committee, to deal with this. If we limited damages for wrongful arrest to cases of malice or gross negligence, he said, it would be inconsistent to give a remedy for arrest not fulfilling these criteria.
In Natwest Markets Plc v Stallion Eight Shipping Co. SA, (the ship MV ALKYON)  EWHC 2033 (Admlty) a bank mortgagee arrested alleging a LTV default; the owner denied default. Unable to secure release by putting up further security, it sought release unless the bank put up security for any losses it suffered in case the bank was wrong. The arrest was, consistently with the above, maintained.